Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

Because my right hon. Friend and I have discussed these matters—he sent me to the Library to read the reports—I have come across that contribution. I was about to mention that a problem has arisen from the failure to do what the James review made clear needed to be done, which relates to the intervention by the hon. Member for High Peak. The original intention was seriously to examine all the bodies involved and to try to come up with a simpler, less confusing architecture. I attribute that motive to the Secretary of State and her then Ministers, who, interestingly, had in mind an image that was shared between the providers of evidence to the Select Committee, the James review and, while we are it, Lord Haskins, who wrote an admirable report that I studied about a year ago. DEFRA is involved in delivery—so are the Rural Payments Agency, natural England, RDAs and local authorities. Natural England and the Environment Agency are involved as policemen and prosecutors, as are some other bodies—the inspectorates. Natural England, the Environment Agency and the commission for rural communities are all engaged in advocacy, but under direction. Who is doing what? At the end of all this, no ordinary person could possibly really know. I fear that this pea soup is reflected in the costings, which are instructive. In the regulatory impact assessment, we find under the notes on clauses—as, indeed, we find in the Government’s response to the Select Committee—the Government admit that this simplification measure has very considerable one-off costs, which they assess, if I have understood it correctly, at between £32 million and £45 million over the period 2004–05 to 2008–09. That is in paragraph 11 of the RIA. Yet the annual savings are to be only £11.3 million by 2007–08 and are forecast to reach only £21 million by 2009–10. It does not take long to calculate on the back of an envelope that, during the lifetime of this Parliament, the total effect of these measures will be to save roughly zero. That assumes, moreover, that the one-off costs are not greater than anticipated, which would be a unique occurrence in Government. That is not a partisan point—as far as I am aware, nobody in any Administration has ever managed to reorganise a Department with savings as great, or costs as little, as they hoped. We have before us a marvellous example of Sir Humphrey at work. There are Ministers and advisers with good aims—to simplify, to reduce excessive staffing, to clarify roles, and to give more independence in delivery and advocacy. And what has Sir Humphrey achieved? It is a system that complicates, saves little or nothing, confuses roles further and has one salient effect, which Sir Humphrey will celebrate—the extension of the powers of the Department. I do not doubt the good intentions, but I cannot possibly ask my hon. Friends to sponsor those results; that is why we tabled our reasoned amendment.